|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1475
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
3
Nov 20, 2024, 11:31 AM
|
|
John 4:32
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him".
Context: the woman at the well thought she had to go to the temple to worship. Jesus responded with this.
Today for some reason a Christian seems to be defined by their church attendance. Are you a Sunday morning only or every time the doors are open?
Paul, or more likely one of his followers, said this in Hebrews:
“Do not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching”
|
|
|
|
 |
Top TigerNet [28450]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 21883
Joined: 2002
|
Full context
1
Nov 20, 2024, 11:46 AM
|
|
From John 4
19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”
Not seeing the Church attendance reference you are implying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Full context
3
Nov 20, 2024, 12:21 PM
|
|
The samaritan woman said that worship must be done on the mountain or in Jerusalem. Jesus said true worship is in spirit and truth.
Why did Jesus never set up the church? He said go to the ends of the earth. Not build a building and try to attract people. Where did this idea of “church” even come from? It seems to be more from the Jewish idea of god dwelling in the temple and worship having to occur there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31122]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Full context
2
Nov 20, 2024, 2:09 PM
|
|
>Where did this idea of “church” even come from?
That is a good question.
God gives instructions on how to make a home for himself, and altars have been around a long, long, time, but they are specifically called out for sacrifices, not 'public gathering.' It's for God, not for man, all the way back to Noah stepping off the Ark:
Gen 8:20
"Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it."
(As a curious side note, God never again cursed the ground, but he also didn't uncurse it, lol. Farmers still have to farm to this day.
Gen 8:21 "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans...")
The tabernacle goes back to Exodus 25:1
"The Lord said to Moses...Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering...Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you."
There was no altar in Eden that's spoken of. We know Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to God after A&E were ejected from Eden. Those offerings were presumably together, not separately or to separate places. And what they did in Egypt is anyone's guess.
So where the 'social' aspect of worship comes from, not much to go on, at least from the words of the Bible itself. I'd say there's an undeniable link between using an altar for sacrifice and for worship, but it's interesting that God never says, "Make this place to worship me from." It's always in terms of "Make this place to make sacrifices to me from." Aka, "If you come to my altar, don't bother coming if you are empty handed."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [97799]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 97337
Joined: 2009
|
I believe this will be the 7th time I've explained this to you, sir.
2
Nov 20, 2024, 2:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: Full context ] |
|
I will appreciate if you ask questions about the concept which so eludes you.
To qualify for membership in THE CHURCH, one must be cleaned by the Blood of Christ. The sacrifice comes first then the cleansing.
The church could not receive members until Jesus' blood was poured out upon the souls of those who receive Him as Savior. You can't be part of The Church without the Blood.
It just couldn't happen before Jesus did what was necessary to make it possible. That would be trying to put the cart before the horse which never works with God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61516]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47828
Joined: 2000
|
And God had to have that sacrifice. He couldn't do it any other way.
1
Nov 20, 2024, 3:30 PM
|
|
There are some things God can't do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [97799]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 97337
Joined: 2009
|
Re: And God had to have that sacrifice. He couldn't do it any other way.
1
Nov 21, 2024, 8:54 AM
|
|
1 Corinthians 2:
"14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61516]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47828
Joined: 2000
|
What does that mean as it relates to my post about there are some things
1
Nov 21, 2024, 9:40 AM
|
|
God can't do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25319]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14479
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Full context
3
Nov 20, 2024, 11:49 PM
[ in reply to Re: Full context ] |
|
Agree with much of that. I am more familiar with AA than I wish I was, yet eternally thankful for it. The 12 Steps and 12 Traditions are, imo, of biblical origin (given the history, etc), with the 12 Steps sometimes referred to as "How To Not Kill Ourselves" and the 12 Traditions as "How To Not Kill Each Other".
You might be interested to know that Tradition #11 says:
"Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films." This is right in line with your point.
However, Step 12 reads:
"Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs."
They seem to contradict, do they not? Does AA "attract", or "carry the message"? Which? However, the first is a Tradition, relating to how AA operates as a group. The second is a Step, an action an individual takes as part of his spiritual growth and sobriety. AA does not use its existence, practices, or buildings (I don't think we own any) to in any way affect culture. The message is carried by the individual, not the organization. Every person in the room can point to another person and say, "I am here because of him (her). Until I knew him, I didn't even know this meeting existed." I think that is the value you are talking about.
I think you would find it interesting that Tradition 12 says: "I can say I am an alcoholic, but I cannot say you are or that I saw you here. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities." I think you would agree that today's church could use a little of that "principle before personalities". As could our national politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25319]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14479
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Full context
2
Nov 21, 2024, 10:50 AM
|
|
Edit:
About anonymity and what it means:
About a month ago a very famous person, known to everyone reading this, came to our weekly meeting. We all will see him on TV many times in the coming years. He didn't introduce himself, no one introduced themselves. He got a cup of coffee, took a seat, was pleasant to everyone around him. Near the end he did share a personal story that was relevant to the discussion. When the meeting was over he put his seat away, threw away his cup, and left.
His story, by the way, was one of the most transparent and revealing of anything said that day. Had a reporter been there - one could have been, but wasn't - what he said could have been used to slander him. He didn't care.
No one has said, or will say, "Hey, you need to come to my AA meeting. 'Bill Smith' was there (or attends), so you know it's a good meeting and does good stuff." Nope. Not about him. That is what the anonymity is about, not keeping one's alcoholism a secret.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64208]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 23654
Joined: 2017
|
For where two or three of you are gathered
3
Nov 21, 2024, 1:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: Full context ] |
|
together in my name, I am there with you”.
I think this speaks volumes and you don’t need 10 paragraphs to explain it.
The gathering, I believe, then became a focal point of a community. Thus a building in Gods name.
That is how I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61516]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47828
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
2
Nov 20, 2024, 3:39 PM
|
|
Very good listen. Towards the end he starts talking about the differences in what Jesus believed and taught versus Paul. Something I’ve never heard is what he said about Paul never mentioning the sermon on the mount or any of Jesus teachings. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31122]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
1
Nov 20, 2024, 3:59 PM
|
|
I presume a part of the reason Jesus never wrote anything is because he didn't think anyone would have time to read it. If the end was imminent, you've got to get the message out by word-of-mouth, you can't be waiting for people to read the message when they 'find the time.'
He knew scripture well enough to teach teachers, so I assume he was exceptionally literate. A real bummer we don't have texts from his own hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
2
Nov 20, 2024, 4:39 PM
|
|
That and the rest of the New Testament is made up of letters to specific churches to address specific problems at that time. As Ehrman points out, Matthew or any other biblical author was not writing to be included in the Bible or the New Testament or scripture.
Jesus didn’t feel the need to write. Scripture had already been written. Follow the commandments, care for the poor, and you’ll be ok on judgment day.
Maybe, and I’m just throwing this out there, Paul was an invention by followers of Jesus once they realized his return and the end of times didn’t happen. Now we have to reinterpret him to be talking about sometime in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31122]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
2
Nov 20, 2024, 4:57 PM
|
|
Very good points.
>Matthew or any other biblical author was not writing to be included in the Bible or the New Testament or scripture.
Yes. I actually think that adds to the validity of Jesus and his message, for those who might think that he didn't exist. The Gospels are 4, mostly harmonized, independent accounts of the stories of his life. I actually find the minor differences more believable, too.
You can't find 4 people to describe the very same football game in the same way either. Complete harmony and consistency is not as convincing.
>Jesus didn’t feel the need to write. Scripture had already been written. Follow the commandments, care for the poor, and you’ll be ok on judgment day.
Excellent point. "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." (with some differing opinions on what 'fulfill' means)
>Maybe, and I’m just throwing this out there, Paul was an invention by followers
It's within the realm of possibility, but I'd consider it extremely unlikely. Virtually zero. His impact is just too great. How else would one explain all his churches, etc. And, I think the differences in his interpretation vs. James and company add to the believability of the history.
Two men disagreeing on something (faith vs acts)?, when has that ever occurred, lol. Only every day of existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2834]
TigerPulse: 73%
33
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
1
Nov 20, 2024, 8:10 PM
|
|
"It's within the realm of possibility, but I'd consider it extremely unlikely. Virtually zero. His impact is just too great. How else would one explain all his churches, etc. And, I think the differences in his interpretation vs. James and company add to the believability of the history."
Once upon a time I was a deacon at a church. Very conservative baptist church. The pastor sometimes would come into meetings and say that he had prayed about the issue at hand and that god had given him direction. That was that. Nobody questioned it because he's the leader of the church.
Paul's "revelation" could have been as simple as that. "Hey guys, I had a vision, and this is the right way and how we are gonna do it." In sunday school the event is always imagined as the sky opening, a massive Jesus appearing in the clouds, everybody around Paul blinded by the light, and Jesus doing his best Morgan Freeman impression speaks the truth to Paul.
It just seems odd to me that SO much authority would be given to this one guy, who never met Jesus, who was also supposedly out persecuting christians. That's just awful convenient for the movement that you get this guy recruited over to your ranks, and strange that his opinion would out weigh those who walked and talked with the historical Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31122]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
2
Nov 20, 2024, 8:35 PM
|
|
I agree with you on both points. In a contemporary sense, I don't question anyone's personal experiences. How could I?
But it does amaze me how many people follow 'other' people's experiences. I've said on occasion that it takes just as much faith in Paul and Paul's delivery of the message, as it does to believe in God himself, unless God has spoken to one directly.
In a historic sense, that would apply to the first of Paul's converts, too. I'm not sure if he had the harder or the easier job than James. Paul's converts may have not even known what a Messiah was, or Sin was. He had to start from absolute scratch, or at least from the Greek/Roman pantheon, rather than the foundational concepts of Judaism.
Imagine Paul walking into a village in Turkey and saying, "Jesus died for your Sins," and the reply he gets is "So? And btw, what is a sin?" That's a steep learning curve, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31122]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
1
Nov 20, 2024, 3:54 PM
[ in reply to Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church ] |
|
That was just excellent. Middle ten minutes was a little slow, but first and last 10+10 were great. Great questions, great answers.
The impact of Jesus's death to his followers. What a body-blow, in the moment.
The Messiah has come! And he died? Holy S---! What does THAT mean? Today, we have 2000 years of answers and understanding to lean on. But in that moment...woah.
I could only think of Obi-Wan dying in Star Wars. "The great and wise Jedi will save us! Wait, he died?"
And for pure shock value...this one. Samuel Jackson will save us! He's a AAA-List STAR!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS8I9H07wKw
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31122]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
1
Nov 20, 2024, 4:05 PM
|
|
Bah! Age-Restriction. Clicking directly on the hyperlink directly still works, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19362]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
And Jesus spent time in the Temple, teaching, Himself
3
Nov 20, 2024, 5:35 PM
|
|
as it was His custom to do so.... you do find that is Scripture also. So, Jesus does not tell anyone to tear the temple/church down either.
The reason for the [modern] church occurs for a number of reasons. A few to consider:
- Jesus separated Himself from the OT and the sacrificial system by teaching He was the completion/fulfillment of the Law. This means that those who believed in Jesus could not in good [faith] return to the Law as taught in the Temples.
- Those who were coming to faith in Jesus also were coming to learn 1) what He taught, 2) Why He taught it, 3) How He fulfilled the Law, 4) How He fulfilled the OT prophesies, 5) How to apply this new faith and understanding to their lives.
- The [buildings] people congregated in grew - homes could no longer hold all the people. Buildings were built... and, why shouldn't they be built? Jesus worshipped in the Temple to teach God's word - that means people came to learn what was taught. Same thing applies with the New Covenant in Christ. Teachers were needed because those seeking to learn were everywhere. They still come to learn today.
- The need for churches continues because of the false doctrines that were, and are still taught - both outside and inside the congregations that gather. Teachers first started combating false doctrines in the early church > see Gnosticism. Read the Epistles of John, too.
- The church building is no what saves people and it never was. When Jesus calls His people home, the rapture, the buildings will still have some who show up to ask what happened to all those who "disappeared". As a side note, I imagine a lot of them will be quite happy to learn that their loved ones were abducted by aliens and are on a long peaceful voyage which will see them return someday.
So, Paul, who was not at the Sermon on the Mount, does not mention it but his teaching are not contrary to the Will of God... who called him as a teacher to the Gentiles after the crucifixion and resurrection.
Message was edited by: HuntClub®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31122]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: And Jesus spent time in the Temple, teaching, Himself
3
Nov 20, 2024, 8:49 PM
|
|
Yes, teaching must have been/is a big factor. A new message must be spread somehow, and a gathering is the most efficient way to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [97799]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 97337
Joined: 2009
|
The greatest joy in Thankgiving, soon upon us, is the gathering of family.
2
Nov 21, 2024, 9:03 AM
|
|
Rejoicing over each members' life, good fortune and fellowship. None is better fellowship that that which includes a fine meal. We also grieve with one another for those who are absent, some whom have passed on and some who couldn't make the event. That too is a form of fellowship for sharing grief is a relief.
That is also a description of Sunday meetings where Christians give and receive God's Word which as was called by His Only Son, 'The Bread of Life.' We rejoice and often grieve together for we are brothers and sisters, children of the Almighty God and eternal kindfolk.
Visitors are welcome, mostly and only if they behave themselves. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25319]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14479
Joined: 2001
|
Re: And Jesus spent time in the Temple, teaching, Himself
1
Nov 21, 2024, 10:38 AM
[ in reply to Re: And Jesus spent time in the Temple, teaching, Himself ] |
|
We can go down this rabbit hole forever, but I would love to go to 100 AD for a while to see how our modern terms of 'giving', 'teaching' and 'meeting' were understood and practiced then. I am not suggesting they shouldnt change in practice with culture, but I suspect that the basic definition has changed. "Teach" today means 200 people sitting in pews all facing a podium, where a paid speaker with a degree tells them what the bible says. I think there is more wrong with that than we can imagine.
People come to faith today more in spite of the church than because of it, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19362]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
People come to faith today the same as they always have
2
Nov 21, 2024, 1:51 PM
|
|
Through the work of the Holy Spirit.
I have heard people discount the [church] of today too often because it does not "resemble" the church of AD 100. How could it? People meeting in the street had to come to an end. And large crowds would gather even then, otherwise you must discard the book of ACTS - which also explains the need for deacons to take roles among the believers that gathered.
God called Paul, a Pharisee, for a reason. You ever consider that Paul's understanding of [structured] gatherings by people of faith had anything to do with it? If not, that's fine. But one cannot deny that God certainly did not exclude Paul from using that experience to help the Gentiles in their formation of the church, can they?
In fact, I would argue that God calls many people to ministry specifically because of their [life] experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25319]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14479
Joined: 2001
|
Re: People come to faith today the same as they always have
1
Nov 21, 2024, 11:00 PM
|
|
You raise very good points, and i did not mean to say all comparisons should be all or nothing. However, the existence of denominations, mega churches, rock star leader/speakers who fit no definition of 'pastor', and political activism are not, imo, the necessary result of technology differences between then and now. David wasnt even supposed to count soldiers, but church staff are evaluated on Sunday attendance of their sub groups.
Whatever one thinks of that, the greatest expansion of the faith in the US was during the time of the circuit rider. He would have many congregations in small frontier towns, so visits were periodic, the purpose being to encourage the lay leaders who were responsible for the community week to week. As you point out, as they became more prosperous they wanted better buildings and full time paid staff. Today, a person drives past 50 available churches to attend one because he likes the band, speaker or service style, which leads to secular definitions of success. A comparison of that to where we originally came from is valid and needed, imo.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19362]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Re: People come to faith today the same as they always have
1
Nov 21, 2024, 11:08 PM
|
|
And there is truth in your words, too. Too many Christians just searching for emotional highs... but too many rabbit holes where this is headed.
Have a good night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25319]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14479
Joined: 2001
|
Re: People come to faith today the same as they always have
Nov 22, 2024, 12:05 AM
|
|
Agree. Much too nuanced a subject for a message board. The vast majority of pastors are overworked and underpaid servants who want only the best, and to pursue the highest ideals. I think modern Christian culture puts them in a bad position, with the wrong expectations. High stress results. Probably best to not say much more than that here.
Have a great weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25319]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14479
Joined: 2001
|
You are raising three interesting subjects, only two of common origin, imo.
3
Nov 20, 2024, 11:16 PM
|
|
In order in your post:
1. This is, imo, one of the more compelling and instructive incidents in the gospels. I read as you seem to.
2. Yes, churchyism is a thing, maybe the largest factor in modern Christianity. If you are pointing out the difference between #2 and #1, I am with you. In many ways they share vocabulary but little else. Even some of the vocabulary similarity is apparent rather than actual because:
3. The NT discussions of gatherings were of course nothing like what we see now. To your point, the NT never uses the word "church": the Greek word used consistently is a secular word that meant "gathering of people". Today, when we read, "To the church at ...", we picture today's religious organization, structure and cultural identity. However, nothing like that existed then, or was contemplated. Some translations now even replace the word "church" with something like "people who meet to worship Jesus" (which is a more literal translation), which can be 10 people in a home, and was exclusively that until about 300 AD.
All three of your points are correct, but the 2nd one is not biblical, imo. Discount it, and the 1st and 3rd points are not inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61516]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47828
Joined: 2000
|
Re: You are raising three interesting subjects, only two of common origin, imo.
2
Nov 21, 2024, 9:49 AM
|
|
I always assumed "the church", when used that way in the NT simply referred to believers in and followers of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25319]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14479
Joined: 2001
|
Re: You are raising three interesting subjects, only two of common origin, imo.
2
Nov 21, 2024, 10:31 AM
|
|
And of course it still means that today. But it also means all the cultural, physical, social and hierarchal things that now characterize it. When we see the word, we assume all that. Many people even have, understandably, a negative emotional reaction to merely seeing the word.
There is an underreported - may it remain so - movement of small house churches, each consisting of a dozen-ish people, very autonomous but loosely connected. When noted at all, this movement is referred to as the "underground church". I always smile at that. The collection of Christians today that most resembles that in 150 AD has to be referred to with a qualifier.
Anyway, there is much railing against Christians and how they do things, much of it deserved. But that shouldn't be used to misread the NT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61516]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 47828
Joined: 2000
|
Agreed.***
2
Nov 21, 2024, 11:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [45]
TigerPulse: 64%
5
|
Re: Difference between Jesus and Paul/modern church
Nov 21, 2024, 3:24 PM
|
|
Church assemblies were never meant to be setup like the Roman amphitheater where 1 man is exalted to speak & lecture a captive audience. But that's exactly what we have had for a very long time.
There's also no seminary prerequisite for preaching in your Bible either yet modern organized religion worships at the altar of the diploma and in turn most are led around by the nose by a bunch of money grubbing wolves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1475
|
|
|
50
